June Ricca sued Samhal Interiors to recover money paid for some design work.
While the parties' written agreement separated the project into two components, a completion date wasn't specified. (It did provide that the $5,000 retainer fee wasn't refundable, unless Samhal failed to complete the work.)
During the course of a non-jury trial, Samhal showed it spent quite a bit of time on the project an gave the court an abstract of the services performed. The company was also established that Ricca didn't make design decisions -- which impeded the company's efforts.
Ricca, on the other hand, thought the project had taken too long and wanted to terminate the contract without losing her retainer fee.
After the District Court awarded Ricca a refund of $2,037.50, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed that outcome on appeal.
The AT2 found that Samhal hadn't breached the agreement and that Ricca's indecisiveness was what caused the delay.
How would you dress that up?
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Ricca v. Samhal Interiors